making the most of multisite evaluations add place add date

Making the Most of Multisite Evaluations

ADD PLACEADD DATE

Note

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC 0438545. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Today’s Agenda

• Overview and introductions• What? Our research grounding• So what? Implications for practice• Now what? Application discussion

Session Goals

• Review the basics of UFE and PE

• Distinguish between participation and involvement in multisite settings

• Discuss how to increase the impact of multisite evaluations

• Apply these ideas to evaluation examples

• Brainstorm solutions to multisite evaluation involvement and use challenges

THREE-STEP INTERVIEWThink about your own evaluation experiences. . .

Question

Think of a time when people truly used an evaluation that you were part of.

–Describe that evaluation. –What distinguished it from other

evaluations in which you have participated?

“BEYOND EVALUATION USE”Our NSF-funded research study

What This Research Was NOT…

Our study did not focus on the traditional notion of utilization-

focused evaluation– “intended use by intended users”

What Our Research Studied

• What happens to project staff who take part in a large-scale, multisite program evaluation

• Secondary potential users at multiple sites who participate throughout the evaluation process– How their involvement potentially leads to use– “[Un]intended use by [un]intended users”

Definitions• Program

–a major national funding initiative

• Project–one of many smaller efforts funded under a

single program

• Multisite–multiple program sites that participate in

the conduct of cross-site evaluation activity (Straw & Herrell, 2002)

“Beyond Evaluation Use” NSF Programs

Name of Program Years of Evaluations

Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement (LSC)

1995 – present

Advanced Technological Education (ATE) 1998 - 2005

Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETP) 1999 - 2005

Building Evaluation Capacity of STEM Projects: Math Science Partnership Research Evaluation and Technical Assistance Project (MSP-RETA)

2002 – present

Methods

–Archival Review–Project Leader and Evaluator Survey–Interviews–NSF PI Survey–Journal Editor Inquiry–Citation Analysis

National Science Foundation Grant #0438545

Research Limitations

• Difficult to control for the variety of definitions in the field

• Memory issues for participants• Lack of distinction between program

and project in survey responses• Sampling challenges and program

variation

Research Strengths• Unusual to receive funding for

evaluation research• Real world program examples• Different from traditional utilization-

focused evaluation focus• Studied influence on the field and on

projects themselves• Use of varied and innovative

methods

CONCEPTUAL GROUNDINGWhat are the ideas this research studied? (What?)

Overarching Concepts

• Evaluation use/influence• Involvement

–Utilization-focused evaluation (UFE)

–Participatory evaluation (PE)

Traditional Types of Evaluation Use

Type Use For Definition: The Use of Knowledge. . .

Instrumental Action . . . for making decisions

Conceptual orEnlightenment

Understanding . . . to better understand a program or policy

Political,Persuasive, or Symbolic

Justification . . . to support a decision someone has already made or to persuade others to hold a specific opinion

Definitions in “Beyond Evaluation Use”

Term Definition

Evaluation useThe purposeful application of evaluation

processes, findings, or knowledge to produce an effect

Influence ON evaluation

The capacity of an individual to produce effects on an evaluation by direct or indirect means

Influence OF evaluation

(from Kirkhart, 2000)

The capacity or power of evaluation to produce effects on others

by intangible or indirect means

What Is Involvement?

• Not “participation”• Not “engagement”• Instead, think about how UFE

and PE overlap

Overlap between UFE and PE

UFE PEKey people take part

throughout the

evaluationprocess

Utilization-focused Evaluation (UFE)

Evaluation done for and with specific, intended primary users

for specific, intended uses-Patton (2008), Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th Edition

The PERSONAL FACTOR in Evaluation

"The presence of

an identifiable individual

or group of people

who personally care

about the evaluation

and the findings it generates"

Key Collaboration Points in UFE

• Issues to examine (information primary intended users want/need)

• Methods to use (credibility in context)• Analysis and interpretation of data• Recommendations that will be useful

Overlap between UFE and PE

UFEPrimary

intended users are involved in

all key evaluation decisions

PEKey people take part

throughout the evaluationprocess

Participatory Evaluation (PE) Range of definitions

– Active participation throughout all phases in the evaluation process by those with a stake in the program (King,1998)

– Broadening decision-making and problem-solving through systematic inquiry; reallocating power in the production of knowledge and promoting social changes (Cousins & Whitmore,1998)

Principles of PE• Participants OWN the evaluation• The evaluator facilitates; participants plan

and conduct the study• People learn evaluation logic and skills as

part of the process• ALL aspects of the evaluation are

understandable and meaningful • Internal self-accountability is valued

(Adapted from Patton, 1997)

Characteristics of PE1. Control of the evaluation process

ranges from evaluator to practitioners

2. Stakeholder selection for participation ranges from primary users to “all legitimate groups”

3. Depth of participation ranges from consultation to deep participation

(From Cousins & Whitmore, 1998)

Cousins & Whitmore Framework

Interactive Evaluation Quotient

LOW

HIGHEvaluator

Programstaff, clients, community

Invo

lvem

ent i

n de

cisi

on

mak

ing

and

impl

emen

tatio

n

Participant-directedCollaborativeEvaluator-directed

PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION

Overlap between UFE and PE

UFEPrimary intended usersare involved in all key evaluation decisions

PEParticipants help

to plan and implement the

evaluation

Key people take part

throughout the evaluationprocess

MULTI-SITE EVALUATIONSWhat happens when there are many sites involved in one study?

Challenges of UFE/PE in Multisite Settings

• Projects vary– Activities – Goals – – Budgets -- Stakeholders

• Projects may be geographically diverse– Distance -- Cost

• Programs each have multiple stakeholders so the “project” becomes a key stakeholder (Lawrenz & Huffman, 2003)

Prediction

How might

UFE and PE play out

in multisite evaluations (MSE’s)?

The Focus of Our Research

UFEPrimary intended users

(PIU’s) are involved in all key evaluation decisions

PEParticipants help to plan and implement

the evaluation design

Secondary potential users

at multiple sites are involved

throughout evaluationprocess

WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?After five years. . . so what?

What Our Research Found

• Secondary potential users did sometimes feel involved in the program evaluation and did sometimes use results

• What fostered feelings of involvement:–Meetings of all types; face-to-face best–Planning for use–The mere act of providing or collecting

data

What Fostered Use

• Perception of a high quality evaluation

• Convenience, practicality, and alignment of evaluation materials (e.g., instruments)

• Feeling membership in a community

Remember the three-step interview results?

Implications for Practice

1. Set reasonable expectations for project staff– Consider different levels of involvement (depth

OR breadth, not both necessarily)– Have projects serve as advisors or consultants– Have detail work completed by others/ outsiders

2. Address evaluation data concerns – Verify understanding of data definitions– Check accuracy (Does it make sense?)– Consider multiple analyses and interpretations

Implications for Practice (cont.)3. Communicate, communicate,

communicate -- Personal contact matters

4. Interface regularly with the funder– Understand the various contexts– Garner support for the program evaluation– Obtain help to promote involvement and use– Represent the projects back to the funder

Implications for Practice (cont.)

5. Recognize life cycles of people, projects, and the program– Involve more than one person per project– Understand the politics of projects

6. Expect tensions and conflict– Between project and program evaluation– Among projects (competition)– About how best to use resources

Implications for Practice (cont.)

7. Work to build community among projects and between projects/funder– Face-to-face interactions – Continuous communication– Asynchronous electronic communication– Be credible to project staff

• Recognized expertise• “Guide on the side” not “sage on the stage”

APPLICATION PRACTICENow what?

Application Activity

Work in teams

to discuss

the assigned vignette.

[Try the checklist.]

Vignette #1 Summary

Health Technician Training Program: HTTP

–Training to increase healthcare technicians

– Issue: Program-level evaluation not relevant to project-level evaluation

Vignette #2 Summary

Medical Communication Collaboration: MCC

–Development of communications curricula for medical professional students

– Issue: Projects do not use program-created evaluation tools and analysis

Vignette #3 Summary

Professional Development for Districts: PDD

–Funding for professional development projects in primary education

– Issue: Local evaluators asked to provide program evaluation data one year after beginning project-level evaluation which took time away from the local evaluation

Vignette #4 Summary

Foundation for Fostering Urban Renewal: FFUR

– Evaluation technical assistance and consultative services program launched by grantor to provide direct technical assistance to any of their grantees.

– Issue: Few grantees taking advantage of the assistance and consultation.

As you think about these ideas. . .

Questions?

Summary

• Involvement in MSEs is different from participation in single site evaluations

• Involvement does promote use• There are several ways to foster

participants’ feelings of involvement • Communication with participants and

funders is critical

For Further InformationOnline -

http://cehd.umn.edu/projects/beu/default.html

E-mail – Lawrenz@umn.edu

PowerPoint developers:– Dr. Jean A. King– Dr. Frances Lawrenz– Dr. Stacie Toal– Kelli Johnson– Denise Roseland– Gina Johnson